Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status Of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 04/28/2025.
In a preliminary amendment, claims 1 and 16 were amended. Claims 12-15 were canceled.
Claims 1-11 and 16-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-11 and 16-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,289,189.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 and 16-23 of the instant pending application omits certain steps of claims 1-20 in the 11,289,189 patent. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 16-23 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-20 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing a system and method for automatically generating telemedicine clinics.
Claims 1-11 and 16-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,636,947.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 and 16-23 of the instant pending application omits certain steps of claims 1-29 in the 11,636,947 patent. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 16-23 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-29 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing a system and method for automatically generating telemedicine clinics.
Claims 1-11 and 16-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,967,420.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 and 16-23 of the instant pending application omits certain steps of claims 1-23 in the 11,967,420 patent. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 16-23 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-23 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing a system and method for automatically generating telemedicine clinics.
Claims 1-11 and 16-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,288,613.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 and 16-23 of the instant pending application omits certain steps of claims 1-21 in the 12,288,613 patent. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 16-23 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-21 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing a system and method for automatically generating telemedicine clinics.
The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows:
Haq: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2008/0275311 A1
Prodanovich: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2012/0197660 A1
Clements: U.S. Patent U.S. 7,912,733 B2
Macoviak: WIPO Publication WO 2012/148780 A2
Koop et al., Future Delivery Of Health Care: Cybercare, In IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol.27, no.6, pp.29-38, November-December 2008, doi:10.1109/MEMB.2008.929888
Howard, Are Virtual Care Clinics The Wave Of The Future?, Aug.17, 2016, U.S. News, https:/Avwww.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-17/are-virtual-are-clinics-the-wave-of-the-future, Pages 1-8
Frommer, Telemedicine: The Next Generation Is Here, Jan 1, 2000, Proceedings Academia/Industry Working Conference on Research Challenges '00, Next Generation
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 571.272.8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights